• forrgott@lemm.eeEnglish
    23·
    13 hours ago

    Wow. Talk about moving the goal posts. You’re not even taking about the same thing anymore.

    If you just wanna bitch about something, uh, then go in with your bad self. Or something. But rather than even attempt a rebuttal to any of the points raised in this thread, you’ve literally completely changed the scenario being discussed.

    Like, why even bother replying? Your whole tirade doesn’t even make sense in the context of the thread…

    • miss_demeanour@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      13·
      12 hours ago

      I love when folks introduce hypotheticals, then pile on hypotheticals and nonsensicals, and believe they’ve championed their cleverness.

    • RivalarrivalEnglish
      13·
      7 hours ago

      I used exaggerated examples to clearly demonstrate the nature of the problem, not to quantify it.

      The problem is still present even within the neighborhood. Residential consumers rarely draw more than 1/10th of their rated service. Crypto-bro comes into the neighborhood and his miners continuously max out his service.

      The power company normally installs and maintains a single service transformer per block; but he alone uses as much power as the rest of the block combined. They have to install and maintain a second transformer just for him, but they spread those extra costs among the entire block.

      Why is it reasonable for the power company to demand you subsidize his electrical connection than for him to pay for what he is using?